Category Archives: Knowledge Ecology And Economy
Microsoft, BT And My Computer
E-technology may well be becoming more accessible, but it still has its problems if you’re just the customer. These last few weeks have brought this message home for one aspiring e-user at least.
I’d be the very first to admit I’m totally below the horizon when it comes to things e-technical, but I do seem to know a bit about how to deal with emails, blogs and such like. A-level Physics was a very long time ago – no computers then, anyway – and my relationship with my e-suppliers is the same (in my mind) as that with my newspaper shop, car mechanic or whatever. They deliver the goods and I use them.
So in a vague sort of way I expect that my IT suppliers will look after the technicals, the supply chain and so forth, and I will give them money to deliver a service, before we reach the part of the process which I’m responsible for.
Unwelcome surprises
It was a surprise therefore when all things e-technical went quite seriously awry in this office a few weeks ago. My email went on strike and my data-save service stopped working, all at about the same time, so I couldn’t access any back-ups, exactly when I also couldn’t read or send any email. (And I couldn’t just restart on Outlook 2003, before you ask, because it’s sold out everywhere. Why? is a good question…)
It turns out that these things were both related and not related. It was bad timing, but also bad luck. My only good fortune was that the wonderful Nick Prior (and a few very e-technically-minded house guests over the festive season – thank you, Nick and all!) managed to work out what the problems were:
The problems diagnosed
Firstly, although Microsoft had updated my Office system rigorously, I turned out still to have an ‘old’ copy of Microsoft Outlook 2000. How was I to know, having used the system for some years, that as soon as a large number of attachments reached me just before Christmas, this file would hit 2 gigabytes and flatly refuse to respond at all?
There were no ‘warnings’, nothing to let me know things were about to go haywire, it just all STOPPED…… and took until early January to sort out.
Secondly, the very act of Microsoft’s updating my system (they offered, I didn’t ask them to) was also the cause of my BT DigitalVault going on strike, even before I’d managed to get it started. BT ran a Net service before this, and they – again not I – insisted on my updating and starting a new system. When I rang
to ask why DigitalVault was failing to register my data I was met with a weary ‘You haven’t just updated to ‘7, have you Madam? Could you downgrade again?’
Well, no chance of that, so I still have a non-functioning ‘service’ whilst I await the basic courtesy of BT and Microsoft talking to each other on behalf of their (paying) customers.
Communication is the key
As on so many other occasions, more attention by the suppliers to communication might have resolved things even before I knew about them.
If Microsoft had enabled a notice to warn me about the 2 gigs limit, I would have ensured it wasn’t reached – a much better solution that the e-surgery, random and necessarily brutal, which was eventually required to get the system going once more.
And if BT and Microsoft had talked to each other before the launch of DigitalVault (or, come to that, if BT had warned me not to permit the Microsoft upgrade, which happened just after I’d signed up for the data protection) I would not now be paying for a function which doesn’t work.
Technical challenges or customers?
Like many other not-particularly-technically-engaged people I expect to be able to use my computer to do simply what it says on the can: in my case, essentially www searches, emails, documents, spreadsheets and weblogs. Not that difficult really.
There are many like me, I suspect ,who have a feeling that the challenges of advancing e-technology are more interesting to most IT people than are their humble customers.
So it’s not surprising, is it, that not everyone wants to embrace the brave new e-world?
Science And Regeneration
Science may sometimes be difficult for people in regeneration to understand; and perhaps this doesn’t always matter. But we do all need to see what science in its operation and applications has to offer. For optimal outcomes at every level dialogue between scientists and regeneration practitioners is critical.
Why is science important in regeneration? And why, if so, is it invisible?
There are many answers both these questions, but three of the most straightforward are:
* Science is a huge part of the knowledge economy, which in turn is a critical part modern western life; we have moved on from standard production to an ideas based economy.
* Science in its applications is both a ‘cause’ of and a ‘cure’ for the environmental issues which are by the day becoming more pressing.
* Science is often invisible because many of us find it incomprehensible and, in any case, it tends to be tucked away in universities, industrial laboratories, business parks and at the more daunting end of the quality media. (We won’t even think here about science and the popular press…)
Plus of course science is as incomprehensible to significant numbers of journalists and politicians as it is to many members of the general public.
Science policy
But science is not the same as science policy. The former tends (though probably less so than in the past) towards more theoretical research, even if often externally funded; the latter is about the intentional influence and impact of scientific (and technological) knowledge on our lives.
The incomprehension of many about science is unsurprising. But impressive scientific knowledge in itself is less important for regeneration strategies than is an understanding of where the application of science can take us, and how to get there. I can drive a car, and I know where I would like it to take me, but I would be hard pressed to construct one.
And science can offer not one destination but several if it is ‘driven’ well…. How about large-scale construction and investment opportunities, enhancement of the skills base, graduate retention and synergy with existing enterprise, plus the kudos of internationally significant research, for a start?
Is there a downside?
It would be foolish to suggest that all science is ‘good’. Publicly contentious work is another reason why understanding what science can do is important – the GM food and MMR vaccination debates, however well-informed or not, come to mind and are frequently confused issues for the non-specialist. But even disallowing for these sort of concerns there are still costs to the advancement of science and technology, not least environmental.
What science and technology ‘cause’ they can also however often mitigate. If we know, say, how ‘expensive’ in carbon terms a particular innovation or development is, we also usually know what to do to mitigate or turn around that cost. Planning and design, for instance, are frequently critical. to best practice.
In a regeneration proposal, has economy of energy been a major consideration? Is the infrastructure connected in ways which reduce negative environmental impact? Are the plans sustainable in all the ways, environmental, economic and at the human level, that they should be? Science of many sorts can help us towards the answers.
Moving away from traditional perspectives
Science and technology are not respectful of the public-private boundaries which have traditionally shaped regeneration. Knowledge, once that genie has emerged, cannot be put back in the bottle. Like water, it will flow wherever it meets least resistance or most encouragement.
Given the gargantuan sums of money which some science and technology require in their developmental phases and application, it is surprising that so little public attention is generally given to where Big Science facilities are located. (The Daresbury Laboratory in the North West of England is a good example of enhanced regeneration when world-class science is secured by active regional lobbying.)
It’s time to move away from the idea that all regeneration requires is a science park tucked away in a corner of our strategic plan, and we need also to think big about what it all means. For the best regeneration outcomes scientists and regeneration policy makers must to be in communication with each other all the time – even if they need an active ‘translator’ to achieve this. Neither is likely to procure the very best opportunities from the other, if no-one is talking.
A version of this article was published, as ‘The appliance of science affects us all’, in New Start magazine on 24 November 2006.
Creationism, Intelligent Design And ‘Truth In Science’ In British Schools
Truth in Science is the latest version of the so-called Intelligent Design ‘theory’ of Creationism. It now reaches into U.K. schools where one expects more measured understanding of the differences between Science and Comparative Religious Studies. What other equally unlikely notions could we, on the same ‘logic’, incorporate into the curriculum, and where? Your comments and ideas are welcome.
A year or so ago a senior and very well respected politician assured me that Intelligent Design would ‘never catch on’ in the U.K. because people here are ‘too sensible’.
Unfortunately he obviously hasn’t spoken to enough people in Liverpool. Following the news that the Bluecoat School in this city is offering the Truth in Science view to Science students, this morning’s Daily Post carries a two-page spread asking Should religion be part of science teaching? All but one or two of those questioned said Yes, they thought it would enhance students’ understandings to be exposed to ‘alternative ideas’ such as Intelligent Design … in science lessons… Apparently all ‘theories’ are of equal value, or so it is said by some.
I can only think these people are playing devil’s advocate. They must be.
Balance or baloney?
It’s one thing to suggest pupils learn about myths and stories in Religious Studies, There, they could perhaps, responsibly presented, ignite young imaginations in many ways – but it’s another entirely to deny the consensus of the very large majority of serious scientists and give these ideas status alongside the multitude of strands of evidence which support Darwinian theory and evolution.
If any children of mine attended a school where a version of Intelligent Design was introduced into the Science curriculum I would have to transfer them to somewhere which I judged a more responsible place of learning. I hope the governors of any schools where Truth in Science is ‘taught’ will ask some really searching questions.
The evidence
I have written before about Intelligent Design and its even more extraordinary cousin, Creationism. The links are:
Creationism Is An Attack On Rationality: The Scientists Rally At Last
Survival Of The Fittest In The Marketplace, But Not For Life On Earth?
Evolutionary Theory In The Lime Light
US Universities, Privatisation And ‘Intelligent Design’
To be quite clear: Children are entitled to learn about things which equip them for modern life. Notions like Intelligent Design and its Truth in Science corollary are unforgivable, as serious science, at a time when it has never been more important to understand how our planet ‘works’ and what we need to do to protect it (and all the living things which inhabit it) for the future. The rising generation deserves far better than this.
Let the debate begin
If you think Intelligent Design has a rightful place in the mainstream Science curriculum, here’s your chance to show why literally thousands upon thousands of highly trained scientists (not to mention a goodly number of senior clerics) have got it wrong.
There again, you more probably think my senior politician contact is reasonable to expect an educationally sensible debate.
But sometimes we have to lighten up a bit. So here, tongue in cheek, is your opportunity to suggest other mysterious or untestable ‘ideas’ which a few folk might like to introduce into the (already over-crowded) mainstream curriculum – the sort of ideas which most of us recognise as simply stories, maybe fine for a tale to tell, but absolutely not fine in any modern educational provision intended to equip young people for the complex futures they must face.
I give you a starter for ten: try flat earth notions and ancient myths in mainstream Geography and History respectively. Or fairies at the bottom of the garden in Environmental Science… What else can you come up with?
SaveOurDaylight: Victor Keegan’s Pledge-Petition
An online pledge-petition has just been created in support of lobbying MPs for the experimental introduction of ‘daylight saving’. Twenty-first century climate change, with its requirement that we save energy wherever possible, makes the need for this proposed three-year experiment even more pressing.
I’ve timed this blog to come on-stream at a very particular point in the year – the exact date and time (in 2006, Sunday 29 October at 2 a.m.) when the clocks go back one hour for the duration of the Winter. It’s an hour when I hope I shall not be paying much attention, but also one that many of us anticipate at best with unease. The extra hour in bed tomorrow morning is great; the prospects daylight-wise from now until the end of March are not.
Rethinking daylight for the 21st Century
There are various moves afoot to keep this issue in the public eye. There’s a bill (probably about to expire) in the Lords, and just this morning (Saturday 28th October ’06) there was news that the Local Government Association has joined the Policy Studies Institute in predicting a reduction in accidents
and other unpleasant things if we moved the entire day forward by one hour throughout the year – which would mean one hour ahead of Greenwich Mean Time in the Winter, and two hours ahead (‘Double Summer Time’) for the rest of the year.
And now we have the blog-petition: SaveOurDaylight is an extension of the debate which surprises me not at all. It’s organised by Victor Keegan, who has also written a piece for The Guardian’s Comment is Free on the issue.
Mr Keegan has pledged to write to his MP about this if 50 other people sign up to do the same. My guess on the basis of the enormous interest in the ‘clocks go forward / back’ entries on this website is that he will need to be looking for his pen and paper before too long at all.
The benefits are real
Of course there are a few people in any situation for whom change brings problems, but the evidence favouring change so far is overwhelming. And that’s before we even seriously get to the environmental advantages -now critical, but not much factored in during previous examinations of the benefits of so-called ‘daylight saving’. In my books the challenges of climate change really have to be the clincher.
The petition is there to be signed. Go for it!
As I keep saying, it really is a win-win.
The full debate about BST is in the section of this website entitled BST: British Summer Time & ‘Daylight Saving’ (The Clocks Go Back & Forward)…..
Pollution, Politics And Practicality: Where Do The Scientists Fit In?
It’s a big distance from the mythical Northlands of Noggin the Nog, to the brutal facts of global warming, but Noggin’s creator, Oliver Postgate, is doing his bit to help. The next step is to try to understand the realities of the complex connections between science, politics and people. Then we really shall begin to see how to establish sustainable living, and how to deliver on the ground what we know in theory is required.
Oliver Postgate is a name which takes me back many years….. it turns out because he’s the author of the wonderful Sagas of Noggin the Nog which were so enjoyed by us all at a point where little bedtime stories featured large in our lives.
But now Mr Postgate is appearing in another guise, in The Guardian advertisements (the latest on 16 October), bringing news of potential environmental doom for our planet.
Good for Oliver Postgate. He has seen how urgent is the task of acting to control (or hopefully reverse) environmental damage, and he is doing something about it. This position may be a very long way from the gentle Northlands of Noggin the Nog, but, in the real world we actually live in, where Oliver Postgate now finds himself is an extremely apposite and important place to be. If Al Gore can go there, why not, I ask quite sincerely, also Oliver Postgate?
Science and politics
I’m one hundred percent with Mr Postgate in his assertion that:
As nobody can pretend to know for certain what is going to happen to the climate, the only safe and sensible thing to do is to deal with it now.
But I’m not sure Oliver Postgate is also correct when he tells us that:
The present government has been making a show of tackling [environmental issues], but the task it has given to its scientists is not simply to find a way to end global warming – they could do that at once – but to do so “without cuttimg either our economic growth or our living standards”.
As these are the two main causes of global warming, this task does, as they say: ‘present some difficulties’ in that, from among the many different specultaive predictions on offer, the scientists are being expected to seek and select, as definitive, the most ‘politically practical’.
A confusion somewhere?
To unpick all the understandings in these two brief statements would take some while. Questions of scientific direction, funding, feasibility, cost, the connections between science and government and, ultimately, political deliverability would all need to be examined in a way which is beyond even a detailed weblog posting. Each of these is an enormous topic in its own right.
Perhaps we shall return to these themes in the future.
Political reality
But there a few matters which we can address immediately. These are:
1. Scientists advise government, on the basis of the best available evidence. Their reputations depend on giving guidance which will withstand the scrutiny of both their colleagues and wider stakeholders. It is important to accept and endorse scientists’ professional independence.
2. What is done by government with scientific advice is a political, not a scientific, matter. The grim reality is that politicians can only take forward policies which, even after they have factored in leadership, example, costs and so forth, still seem to have a chance of success, of being accepted by the voting public.
3. We can all, therefore, help the Government by letting them know we really and truly want to see global warming reversed (or at least arrested) and, critically, that we are also genuinely willing both to take the consequences, and to argue the toss with others who resist this challenge to their routine and expectations.
4. To do this we would have to stop just cynically criticising politicians who want to do more but believe it would be political suicide, and start having the courage to praise them for what they are already doing right. Not a cool thing to do, but nonetheless essential if we sincerely want to see real progress.
What to do now?
So who’s up for it? The spirit of Oliver Postgate’s Noggin the Nog, a good and cheerful childhood example for anyonel, will surely be with us if we choose positively to help bring about the difficult political changes required.
In the meantime we need to remember that scientists have shown change is incremental. We may not be doing absolutely everything right in our own eco-lives, but doing what we can to reverse damage keeps the issues very much alive, and is a lot better than doing nothing.
As one significant, successful but not always best loved trader keeps reminding us, Every Little does indeed Help.
In Praise Of Politics
The benefits of modern democracy which we in the U.K. enjoy are diminished by the media when they invite us to confuse the real thing with synthetic ‘political entertainment’ concocted by those who then ‘report’ it. At a time when cyncism about politics is rife, people need to know about the realities of political involvement, so they can make informed judgements about whom they wish to support.
I’ve just returned from the Labour Party conference in Manchester. Personally, I was impressed. The Prime Minister and Chancellor each spoke with great authority and conviction about what politics means to and for them, and I think it would be fair to say their orations resonated clearly with what the large majority of those attending believe and were looking to be affirmed.
My belief is that the Labour Party, whatever its blips and foibles, stands for a way of life which is fair, progressive and ambitious for everyone’s future. Other major parties in the U.K. can make their own case, but there is no doubt that those who seriously subscribe to these alternative credos also believe that their politic represents a way of life which makes sense to some people. I am content to acknowledge this – and where necessary to ‘take them on’, as Tony Blair urged in his speech. No doubt willingness to contest the political territory would apply in reverse for other parties, too.
Political debate about the future
The Labour Party national conference is one of the largest and without a doubt one of the most inclusive conferences in Europe. Women and men, first-time attenders and cabinet ministers, delegates of all ages, ethnicities, faiths and walks of life, meet in the course of that event as equals to bring their richly diverse experience and expertise to the issues of the day.
And the same applies to the democratic political process in the U.K. on a wider scale.
The critical point is this. Where citizens are prepared to give their time and other personal resources to engaging in debate about the future of our country (and that of the globe), they should be respected for having the courage and conviction to do so.
Of course there are caveats to this general position. When opposing parties permit the debate to become unpleasantly personal, or when they step outside the boundaries of decency (as for instance the British National Party does frequently) they diminish fundamentally the democratic process and thereby lose the right to respect and engagement in that process.
Synthetic ‘news’
So what do we make of the media coverage this week?
Frankly, it has not so far been consistently of the best. I have no problem about considered critiques, or even criticism, of the political offer – that’s what politics is about – but I have plenty of reservations about lead stories concerning what Cherie might or might not have muttered to herself, or about the future prospects of John Reid and Gordon Brown, following the synthetic televised gruelling of a supposedly ‘representative’ (and, for its purpose, woefully small) focus group.
This is the media making the news, not reporting it…. Not an unusual occurrence, but one which does not deserve the headline reporting these matters were given. There are serious issues at stake, and the wider public needs to know about them. Such trivial issues are entertaining, but they don’t take us very far in understanding what the underlying politics is all about.
Politics as commitment
Perhaps this needs to be said loud and clear: Many people are involved in politics with no expectation of personal reward. Most professional politicians go the extra mile and more (if they don’t, they deserve the abrupt termination of their political careers which is likely to follow).
Politics on the ground comprises hours of envelope stuffing and telephone calls; it requires rainy Saturday mornings in surgeries in what are now called challenging contexts; it involves knocking on the doors of not-always-appreciative strangers; it requires digging into one’s own pocket far more than filling it. And, critically, it demands the courage and conviction to stand up and say what one believes, and to take the reputational consequences.
And, most of all, decent politics at every level is underpinned by hope for the future – the belief that people can be persuaded to one’s view of what could be.
Politics as entitlement
I disagree fundamentally with the politics of the right, but I agree that sometimes the questions posed by right-wing politicians are valuable pointers to important issues which require resolution. I also accept that, within the bounds of decency and respect for other decent people (a requirement of us all), those who promote such right-wing positions have an entitlement to do so.
Political debate from the beginning of time has been the fairest way to decide who has the best ideas about what should happen, and who should be given the power to make that come about.
News, Politics or Entertainment?
If the media want to tell stories about what Cherie might have said to herself, or about a synthetic, manufactured event around the future of Gordon and John, no-one should stop them, self-serving of media pundits and distracting from serious debate though these stories are. Indeed, perhaps we are all complicit in this, at least insofar as the media would say we read this stuff and don’t challenge it.
But let’s at least ask that spurious ‘political’ stories be reported under the heading of Entertainment, not News; and let’s try to ensure that proper political reporting is delivered in ways which mark it out as Politics properly defined.
Politics is a difficult and sometimes even dangerous game; it needs, and democracy itself needs, the best people and the best efforts we can muster – and this in turn requires a modicum of underlying respect for those who still choose to make the effort.
Hope not cynicism
![Election Night (Lpool MPs) [smaller] 05.4.26 051.jpg](https://i0.wp.com/www.dreamingrealist.co.uk/Election%20Night%20%28Lpool%20MPs%29%20%5Bsmaller%5D%2005.4.26%20051.jpg)
If there were a better way to run modern societies than democratic politics, someone would have invented it by now. At a time when the victory of cynicism over respect for engagement in the political process has probably never been greater, we, the public, damage ourselves as well as the politicians if we don’t insist at some level that politics is fundamentally about hope for the future; and that political media-created ‘entertainment’ and democratic politics are different things.
Elected Mayors, Democracy And The Regional Agenda
The campaign for a debate about elected Mayors promotes ideas of democratic involvement and public accountability. It is for these reasons, not as a short-hand way to achieve city-regions, that this campaign should be encouraged. Even if elected Mayors become the norm, towns and cities will still need major regional input if they are to be effective players within Britain.
It’s not reallly news that some major cities have problems pulling things together to achieve progress; and nor, to be frank, is it news that Liverpool often seems to be amongst that number.
This is why I believe people should support the campaign for a referendum on a Mayor for Liverpool. For the referendum to happen would require 5% of those elegible to vote in the city to support it… not many one may think, but actually quite a proportion to raise in Liverpool, the city with the lowest election turn-out in the country. In my view, almost anything which encourages people in places like Liverpool to think positively about voting is a good thing.
Elected Mayors as housekeepers
It doesn’t however follow that, because moves to consider elected mayors are supported, that wide-ranging powers for such persons should necessarily be the order of the day. Cities like Liverpool need a named ‘responsible person’, who can bang heads together to get things done, and who must be prepared to take the flack if things don’t work. This person could be seen as taking the role of housekeeper, ensuring that things happen as they should, and that, for instance, streets and parks are clean and safe, events occur to schedule and budget, bids and proposals are submitted on time and well prepared etc.
It would be important for an elected Mayor to have defined, and achieved a consensus on, for instance, what is his / her role, and what is that of the City Chief Executive / Directorates, and of elected Councillors.
Not city-regions
Nor should it be assumed that an elected Mayor would take the lead role in the mooted city-regions. There may well be a role for city-regions as sub-regions, but that debate is still emerging and it is not for me convincing. In the end an excessive emphasis on city-regions not only loses the ‘hinterland’ of any metropoils, but also ignores the reality of regional infrastructure.
No toen or city in the UK outside London is on its own large enough to plan major transport, business development, or scientific investment. The things can only properly be addressed at regional level; as indeed they are in most parts of Europe.
Accountability
City regions and their merits or otherwise are a different debate from the current discussion about elected Mayors. If there’s now a decent debate about elected Mayors, that will be a good start. Maybe it will strengthen interest in the democratic process. And if it also encourages the idea that those who claim to give the lead require support, but must also be prepared to account very openly for their performance, that will be an excellent bonus.
A New Public Realm For Liverpool’s Hope Street
Liverpool’s Hope Street Quarter has just been refurbished, with an exciting and imaginative scheme of new public realm work secured by genuinely ‘bottom-up’ community engagement and local stakeholder buy-in. But this is only a beginning, for what could be one of the most important arts and cultural quarters in Europe.
Seasonal Food – Who Knows About It?
Over the past century our connection with basic food production has largely been lost. But now there are urgent environmental as well as direct health reasons to ensure everyone understands how food is produced. People as consumers (in both senses) need to know about food miles, short produce supply chains, nutritional value and the annual cycle of food production through the changing seasons.
One obvious starting point for this crucial ‘sustainability’ message is schools; and another is allotments.
The way that people find out about food seems to vary from generation to generation. This wasn’t always the case. For millennia you ate what you could grow and, if you were lucky, also what you could swap of your surfeit for someone else’s surfeit.
Then came the developing trade routes, some ancient and exotic (the Silk Road, also a route for spices and much else) and others, far more mundane to our modern minds, such as Salters Lane, the mediaeval travellers’ way which appears in British towns and villages as widely spread as Hastings, Redditch, Tamworth, Chester and Stockton-on-Tees, along with other similar reminders of trade in by-gone eras.
Also within Europe, for instance, were the horrors of such deprivation as the Irish potato famine of 1845-9 and more recently, for some within living memory, informal and formal food rationing (the World Wars of 1914-19 and 1939-45) – a deprivation it is now often considered was more of the palate than of essential nutritional substance.
Different expectations, the same basic understanding
In all these cases, however, fabulous or tragic, ancient or contemporary, people understood something about the genesis of their food. It was either from plants or from animals, nurtured intentionally or garnered whence it appeared. If you wanted to eat, you had to engage in some way in the production or location of your meal.
This, it could be argued, is what is different in times past from how things are today. It can certainly be said that although people must still find their food somewhere, it tends to come pre-prepared, in labelled packets, frozen or perhaps in tins, but not self-evidently from plants and animals.
In much of the western or ‘first’ world the conscious link with what is rather romantically referred to as ‘the soil’ has quite largely been lost. Most people now expect to be able to eat anything they can afford and that they take a liking to, any time they choose.
The downside of choice
Nobody would disagree with the general idea that variety in our diets is a good thing. But in practice it doesn’t seem to be like 
that. Our food arrives on the shop shelves (the only place now where most of us hunt and gather) processed and packaged, and often laden with things we don’t need as well as those we think we want….
For every interesting flavour and texture there are frequently too many empty calories, too much refined sugar and the ‘wrong sort‘ of fats, if not always too few vitamins and minerals. (Contrary to popular belief, frozen and tinned food can, we are told, be as nutritious in these respects as the ‘real thing’. Indeed, given that frozen and tinned foods are usually very fresh when they are processed, they may well have more nutritional value than the produce lying ‘fresh’ in the market.)
And herein lies the rub. There is a confusion in perceptions between ‘fresh’ and ‘well-preserved’ foods, between ‘produce’ and ‘ready meals’. And most people have only the vaguest of ideas about the essential differences between, say, strawberries or carrots flown in ‘fresh’ from California or South Africa, and those grown in glasshouses close to the point where they are sold…. which in turn means we cannot fully appreciate concerns around ‘food miles‘, local / short supply chains or, to return to our original theme, nutritional value-for-money.
Close to the land, close to the retailer
At last some retailers (including some of the biggest) are beginning to acknowledge some of these issues. They boast that they have short supply chains, that their produce are prepared immediately after cropping, that they are willing to promote sustainable ‘seasonal’ products; and they even sometimes offer nutritious recipes to cook from basic (and less basic) ingredients which are fresh and wholesome.
Now it is up to everyone to make sure they understand what is meant by all this.
For not the first time in this debate, much of the answer has to lie in education, in encouraging children to nurture living things; in making sure children know that food does not grow on supermarket shelves, and that they understand how the seasons can be harnessed to ensure a supply a healthy and varied diet.
The other obvious approach is helping people, wherever they live, sustain their own communities, to visit farmers’ markets, and grow at least some of their own food, in allotments or by sharing back garden space, or even just in pots.
From little acorns do great oak trees grow, just as from modest ideas about strawberry pots or rows of peas and potatoes can the notion of seasonal food once again take its place in our understanding of a sustainable world.
Energy Saving: Ergonomics And Logistics For Real People
The very high temperatures in the U.K. this week should give us all pause for thought about global warming. One idea which might come from that is a realisation that there are many small ways in which energy conservation could be ‘designed in’ to our every day lives. Perhaps we should even have citizens’ competitions to see who can come up with the best ideas?
We’re in the middle of a really big heat wave, and all of a sudden everyone is thinking about climate change and sustainable energy resourcing. Now, to mix our metaphors, is the time to strike on this one, whilst the iron is hot.
Not a few of us find it strange that we have to use energy to stay cool at the moment – rather the reverse of the usual problem; and the more curious of us have also begun to consider the mechanisms and costs of that commodity, still quite rare in domsetic buildings in the U.K., the air conditioning system. There is apparently a risk that more widespread adoption of this much vaunted facility could wipe out any gains in energy conservation which we in the U.K. are beginning to make. It can give a boost to the economies of very warm places, as it did in the USA, but at serious cost to the planet itself.
Ways to save energy
There are many ways that everyone can do their bit to save the planet, and these days most of us are aware of at least some of them. I wonder however whether we could do a little extra, by thinking more collectively about ‘designing in’ some of these strategies… could we have wall panels in easily reachable places displaying the switches for our televisons and the like (thus perhaps ensuring that the machines are fully actually turned off when not in use)? Why aren’t down-pipes automatically equipped with waterbutt linkage? What about individually operated small fans fitted as standard in most rooms of our homes, rather than hankering after complete air conditioning? Why aren’t gardens normally furnished with composting facilities? Where is the normal facility for low lighting (solar-boosted of course) via photo-sensors in our porches and other similar areas?
Gripping the public imagination
These are just a very few ideas, and doubtless they have all already been taken up somewhere. What would be good now, however, is if we made these suggestions central to our way of thinking; and what better time to start than when for just a few days we begin to realise what ‘global warming’ really means? Somehow, we need to get everyone’s imaginations gomg on this one. How about some sort of national competition or suggestion box?
Dreaming Realist 